NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/bi/15509

Text File | 1992-11-24 | 6.5 KB | 123 lines

Newsgroups: soc.bi
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!westmark.Stanford.EDU!mlloyd
From: [e-mail] (Mike Lloyd)
Subject: Re: I am not a white male. (was: PC)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Mr News)
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 04:11:19 GMT
Lines: 111

Hookay.  Sorry to be so long in following up, Steve.  It's been a rough
few days.  You mention reservations about keeping this thread rolling; I
share them.  If you've got the point that I didn't mean to insult, I'm
happy.  If we can talk further without generating heat, that could be
good, but if not, not.  You asked a few direct questions, so I'll pick
those up anyway as best I can.  I encourage others to get involved with
this thread, *if* they genuinely believe it is worth pursuing and they
feel they have something to say.

[e-mail] (Stephen M Conley) writes:
: ...  What I object to, however, is your assumption that my views are a
: result of being a part of a cultural elite.

Well, "cultural elite" is not my phrase; elite implies too small a
group.  It's my honest opinion that white males, while hardly handed the
world on a plate, do get an easier ride than any other similarly-sized
identifiable segment of society.

I guess I want to question your objectivity.  None of us are objective,
and if we want to really "pursue truth" (I made some comments recently
on how I dislike that as an idea, but that's by the by), we need to be
conscious of the way our views are moulded by our circumstances, good
and bad.

: Being white and being male
: does not necessarily make one part of the "White Male Monopoly" (as you
: called it).  And yes, for the record, I am a male of European descent.
: But I am not, to the best of my knowledge, part of a priveleged class.

I can point out that I never used the word "privileged", but I can see
why you might assume it was implicit.  Is it really privilege I'm
talking of when I note that it's easier to be white in Ohio than Puerto
Rican in New York?  Or Black in Washington DC?  Or female in Birmingham?

It may not be nice, to be a white male in Ohio, but I think it's clear
enough that white males are not the worst off in our society.  In fact,
as I say, I think the group is still top of the heap, although the
playing field is thankfully being coerced into a more fair shape these
days (modulo the counterattacks of the right).  [Apologies for mexing my
mitaphors]

Now it's also my observation that the kind of independence-centred
reasoning you have been propounding is far more common (although not
quite exclusive) to white males.  Please let me underline that I don't
think that makes it wrong, per se.   It's just my observation of the
views of people I encounter, personally, in the media, or wherever.

I think your view is wrong, or at least insufficient, for other reasons,
which we can discuss if you want.  I think a factor in your viewpoint is
your racial, gender and geographic (US) position.  However, it is not
your route to the conclusion which makes it right or wrong.  Still,
assume for just a moment that I am right - that you are missing
something.  Then it is entirely germane, if not directly helpful, for me
to bring attention to what I believe has influenced your position.  See
my comments above that we all need to realise our lack of objectivity.

: I have had to suffer through quite a lot, and my views have been shaped by
: necessity, not privelege.  And any "priveleges" I may actually have, I did
: not ask for.

These particularly I do not find are relevant.  We all struggle, we all
have to deal with the fact that it's a tough life.  The fact that you
didn't ask for the things our society grants to white males alone, which
it should grant to all (I mean anything from respect [cf racial bias] to
freedom of opportunity [cf glass ceiling]), does not alter the fact that
you receive them, as do I.  We can't help that.  This makes it all the
more important to be self-critical, and to see how our good fortune in
being amongst the less shat upon affects out views.

: Please explain why, in the context of the discussion we were having, how
: my genetic characteristics are relevant.  And as I recall, we were _not_
: discussing me or why I say what I say.

Indeed, we were not.  In my disagreement to your contribution, I thought
it pertinent to connect your emphasis on self-determination to the fact
that you seem to (and in fact do) belong to that segment of our society
which receives the least bias, the least removal of opportunity on the
basis of genetic characteristics.  This is also the group with the most
economic independence, and the greatest capacity for the kind of
self-reliance you suggest.  I see few women, blacks or jews who look for
self-determination through your "fuck you, I don't care what you think"
prescription; their view more often seems to be that they are weaker
than their oppressors, and so are always vulnerable.  This in turn makes
them seek protection, say in the form of anti-discrimination laws.  I
agree with them; that is my understanding of the social reality.

There are indeed strong-minded separatists and the like in those
segments of society, but I still feel that the hard-nosed "I can stand
apart from my oppressor" attitude you suggest is close to
characteristically white, male and Western.  I would hope the reasons
why this would be so are clear, but I can go on further there if need
be.  For now, I think that suffices to answer your questions.

In a nutshell, people who have more control of their lives are less
understanding of those with less.  It's hard to understand the cycle of
poverty of the homeless unless you have lived it (which I have not).
It's hard to understand the million daily harassments that go with being
a woman in this society unless you try to pass as one.  It's hard to
understand racial hatred unless you are a victim of it.  This is what I
think is wrong with your suggestion: simply put, there are those who
cannot afford to say "fuck you", and so claim their liberation.  Most
often, it will not change their oppressed status.  Sometimes, it can get
them killed.

Yours.
Mike
--
Mike Lloyd, B0/1 h- f- t w- g+ k+ s m- e? |    "Bloody nose and burning eyes
      Retro-hippy, music nut, bi and      |  Raised in laughter to the skies"
          backrubber of devotion          |                 - Bruce Cockburn
               --The end of confusion is the beginning of death--